TheRealNihilist

Neil Degrass Tyson - and specifically a lecture he gave about perspective on the universe. When you feel important and look at the universe, you feel small: when you feel unimportant, and look at the universe: you feel big, as you realize that you are just an accident, an amazing miracle that is able to  appreciate your tiny place and position within the universe.

I don't really like Neil Degrasse Tyson and I have heard this message before but it hasn't done it for me. Basically pretty much reinforcing you are not part of a bigger picture you instead are a lump of matter floating through the space you take. Care to explain how this worked for you or do have something less depressing but you found uplifting?

That story I gave you came about two months before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. I almost went with that for my first answer, but it’s less fun. There’s a bit too much stigma about depression and suicide in general - I think it’s good for people to know other people have been through it. And you can ask me anything on this - to a point.

 Was it something a gradual increase or was there a sudden moment that brought you to the edge? No specifics needed apart this part. What generally made the suicide attempt unsuccessful. Basically can answer like my friend told me how much they mean to me or something.

History always works in cycles; they’re getting faster, but they are much the same. Liberalization, reactionary, liberal, reactionary. The arc of history always gets more liberal. As long as your vocal about what you beleive in, and give time and money to causes you beleive in: you so all you can.

How did you rationalize that God doesn't exist?

This will depress you. Do you smoke weed? Wait nvm you're too young... don't. But when i smoke and watch politics... i feel paranoid and depressed. When i listen to music, play games, research stuff i want to... i feel great. Small test, but i think politics is depressing to most people. Just my speculation. 

No drugs. Just simply watching politics. 

To both : that God doesn’t exist. It was initially depressing them actually incredibly uplifting once you realized what it means.

I am still at the depressing stage. How long did it take to be uplifting or what changed it?

When I was 17, my school got a new head teacher - and changed the dress code to black and white only. As I had bought all my clothes for the year - I took issue with that and didn’t follow it. About two months into the term, the head teacher came into my class (having seen me in the morning), or told to make sure I wear the dress code the next day or be suspended.

So the next day, I wore black suit pants, black suit jacket, white suit shirt, black tied, black hat, sunglasses and my name

written on my knuckles. 

When teachers asked what I was doing - I said I was on a mission from God (this was a big deal in catholic school).

Later on in the day, the head teacher came into my class with a trumpet; and demanded that I play as I was a blues brother. Ironically, she didn’t know I played first trumpet in the school band - and I immediately launched into the solo from in the mood

Class clap - head teacher snatches the trump and runs out of the room - I never wore uniform again.

I’m both ; humanity seems to always be at a cross roads. There are many things that are depressing; such as the downward spiral of the US, but other things that are generally more positive, such as some of the action on climate change.

I see. Do you're thing then. Interesting conversation anyways. Introspective topics are good, especially at killing biases. Which i think was your intent.  

Okay.

So does the truth of the Koran depend on how many friends a debater has ?

If you want me to say what is socially accepted would be considered truth then yeah. Sorry to break it to you that humans would rather have comfort than be contrarians or go against the norm majority of the time to take the factual position. If people did work that way we would have an actual unity between guess that is not the case because eventually we would realize this is the end of what we are capable of and if everyone were taking the factual position then everyone would be the same. Facts are not facts if it is changed to suit a worldview. It is a fact when you bow down to its will and accept it for what it is. We just have different areas having different socially accepted ideas which they consider to be true.  

I didn't know we are playing win or lose... but i don't know what you won on. I'm not bi in the end of the day bc i'm not attracted to males. 

You cheated you used something that you don't see on a first date. A vagina.

If a person dressed up and tricked me... either they better shut up and not say anything and play that game... but if they did say it, they'd at least deserve a punch to the gut.

i could likely kill someone if i hit them my hardest in the face. 

 I'm not doubting male's can have female features... i'm doubting a 'transitioning' male can have the whole package.

I'm into the most feminine looking women. It's hard to paint that picture for you over the internet. Plus, what i see may not be what you see. But, i'm pretty accurate in picking females. Answer to your question... yes, all of the above and more. 

I win.

Like some of my friends won't hook up with a trans even if they are fully tricked

I have to jump through all these obstacles just so the person looks female. That would make me heterosexual in the end of the day i think.  

Per the scientist, i guess there are people like that, so now it comes down to my standards and if any meet those. I just don't know. 

Okay. You write a lot.

No, bc it's complicated if we get into psychological factors (typical male behavior stuff). Just appearance alone... i don't like muscles on women that look like males, facial structure, bone structure, i don't like male butts, fat ratio on the body, male parts (obvi), facial hair, just... anything men you know. I'm not turned on by a male look at all. 

If you didn't add that vagina part my question would have ended with a man instead of a trans woman.

First picture i don't find her attractive. She has the muscle thing too that i'm not into. Plus, i'm sure without make-up i'd be able to tell that's a man. There is another factor too i haven't talked about, but as she ages i'm sure without make-up she'd look manly. So first picture is a no. 

Second picture is tricky. I don't find her attractive but you brought up one of my nuances in this discussion. I am sexually the least picky when it comes to Asian women. I still like petite and all the other stuff, but they're all like that... even the males. Therefore, i could likely hook up with a Thai hooker or something like that... when in Rome. But, i still wouldn't marry or relationship. Again they'd have to meet all standards without make-up on, plus psychological and body type. 

Here is a body type i'm attracted to i just remembered yesterday bc i'm watching Lost Girl. She's hot too, but the body is all there. I should say more specifically, her legs to ass to hip to stomach ratio... it's fire. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=ksenia+solo&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhrt_9vZLjAhVOB50JHRTICooQ_AUIECgB&biw=1536&bih=722#imgdii=aMcZiH6z4jPszM:&imgrc=83dUZdB9FZ9j8M: 

I guess above i've sorta conceded at this point though... bc of talking to my family that's a neurologist. He would know. But still, it's hard enough for me to find a women to my standards, let alone a transsexual. I've conceded in the fact that maybe with make-up on, i would hook-up given the circumstances. But, i have a higher standard for a trans for sure, bc they'd really have to trick me in looking like a female. If that's possible, then it's possible i'd hook up. I have nothing against that... i just have never seen a person i'd say, hell yeah all around. Maybe i'm setting my meter too high bc i'm thinking of it in terms of a relationship or marriage. But even hooking up... i've been to trans gentlemen's clubs (prostitutes)... i wasn't able to get into it. None of them tricked me enough... one of my friends on the other hand... 

But here is a question for you... does that really make me bi? Bc i really have to be tricked that a male is a female... that would make me heterosexual in the end of the day. Bi to me means you find males attractive too. I think are issue here is more on the lines of would i hook up with a male that looks exactly like a female (to my standards). Hook up, yes i would. Relationship or marriage (to my standards all around)... possibly yes too, but this is the one i'm not sure exists. It's funny you bring this up anyways... i've been having this debate with all my friends too. 

This is actually what I proposed when I first became a mod, but it was shot down in the MEEPs

It is a good idea. See if from perspective of outside DA.

If the US had only private trials the government can simply do unquestionable things to hold the people in power. This isn't the case so the people of the US can see the trial without being fearful of what is happening.

The drawback is privacy but I don't even consider that a problem. The ban post will only be specifically stating what is already occurring on the site/ Not outside while also giving people relevant information. I don't need to know what people direct message each other. I would like to know what is considered ban-able so that I can see the application of said rules. Without seeing the application of said rules I will have less knowledge to know what is deemed ban-able or not.  

Another drawback I think bsh1 gave was that it can lead to a public hate mod. A simple fix to this is simply state a rule that people who have been banned will not be harassed continuously for what they did. Harassment is already in the rules so basically the public hate mod won't happen and by adding an example of it can make it less of an occurrence. If it gets worse the mods can simply ban the accounts doing it.

I'll let bsh answer, but for crying out loud, this why I wish we had a public ban log 

Hey that is what I want too. Thanks for confirming that someone else likes my ideas.

I don’t think anything you said was wrong

Woo. I knew it. Thanks for confirming my biases.

however, if you fell in love with a man that turned out to be an incredibly convincing woman; are you attracted to them inspire if or because of their maleness?

Why don't you tell me what rules you like to see?

I don't know, the Quran is a divine revelation & God absolutely exists. But I like your confidence. 

What should be the resolution?

In a formal debate voters should vote against a debater who is right but argues badly.

What?
Voters vote for who they thought won. 

Like stamp collecting and historical re-enactment, some people like formal debating.  It leaves me cold. 

The rules of debating require voters to consider how well the argument is expressed, the quality of the sources referred to, spelling ang grammar and general conduct.  Bring right is irrelevant.

Formal debating is a competitive sport intended for aspiring lawyers and politicians to practice the dark arts of advocacy.  It isn't for discovering truths - a good debater should be able to win arguing either side.

The winner of a debate is the best debater, not the one who is right.

and I’m not entirely sure what you want!

What was I wrong about? Excluding personal statements in the last paragraph. 

I see you two cuties are feasting on your delusions... You seem to be quite sure about your case, why don't we have a formal debate to settle this? 

Insult and asking for a debate. Create the debate. If I like the rules then I will accept.

Yes, you can do that in a formal debate. See, you've already got a plan to win.

LMAO, beautiful! Dunning Kruger effect in full display. It's cute. How about that debate though? I see you like debating.

Thats weird. 

Anything else?

i'm not sexually attracted anymore once i "pick up on it."

Are you admitting that you are biases are going in the way of actually finding to not like men?

This is all nuanced bc i would still sleep with a girl that i don't fully find attractive. This doesn't apply to trans however. 

 But sexually, everything about guy features turns me off.

I haven't, enlighten me. If you can show me one person, i'll start re-thinking. 

 https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-beautiful-natural-woman-blond-makeup-skin-image33986840

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/274297433526569976/?lp=true

These girls are without make-up

I have never seen or met a transsexual that i couldn't tell was a guy... or at the very least, had guy features.

Guys have different hands than girls, guys have different asses than girls, and there are other little features guys have that i can pick up on. 

I am into petite, very girly, innocent, looking type of girls.

It's a standard i do not think any guy can have, or at least i haven't seen it.

My standard is actually so into this type that even women that have male features i find sexually unattractive.

But there are also females that i don't think a guy can imitate

the women i'm into look just as womanly without make-up on... 

Sexually, everything about males i find disgusting.

So even if a women has say manly looking hands, i find it unattractive

I'm not entirely sure what that was.

But it is correct. Isn't it?

In other words, it appears you're using this question as another way of demanding proof of God's existence.

Not really. I assumed God existed but wanted to see how people can come to God being good but I didn't see it. This can also be God's existence topic if you want.

I already gave you a Biblical argument. Love also exists as well, so mostly likely a creator would have something to do with it's existence. I would say both are logical reasons to conclude God is good. 

Science only answers questions within our dimension, but a number of scientists acknowledge the possibility of other dimensions (even if they don't want to). Do you agree that other dimensions may exist?

Sounds sort of like relying on a computer to make the ultimate choice for a spouse.

The paper has been peer-reviewed. Make sure it as close to the current. 

It depends how you tested it; I think everyone would qualify as a little bit gay the test involved Tom Hardy, Cadbury’s chocolate and a well lubricated spatula.

Female Xx   ---resultant clitoris---

Male Xy ---resultant head of penis--

Take note of the common larger X.  The smaller x { Barr body } is a compacted larger X but we know at least 18 of its chromsomes remain active { 1990's info }.

Men and women have mammary glands as do all mammals.

Whats confusing to me is that I thought SRY gene in the y chromosome was the only producer of testerone. Since women also produce smaller amounts of testerone, there must exist other pathways for its production.

What yhwh demanded most was obedience and what made him angry was worshipping any of the other gods. 

 Yes "gods" PLURAL which is more than one. At last this god can admit to there being other gods whereas theists believe in there being only one .  You have to wonder why that is.  

How can anyone assume God is good if he definitely doesn't exist?

From the arguments that I have seen from past I concluded that. I am willing to hear a God argument if you have one since that is part of the topic. The love part should have been a question can we talk about God's existence then we talk. I much rather it be formed as a question to talk about a specific aspect of the topic then something else entirely which you hope I understand but if you read my responses from Mopac  I didn't. 

The first assumption would have to be that god exists. Since you don't think any proof has been provided, why would you want to move beyond that question?

Wouldn't you say that I myself just assume God exists?

If a creator could somehow will a universe into existence, even if we don't understand how that can be done, why wouldn't there be a science to willing something into existence just because we don't know how it's done?

what exactly is your criteria since credibility can be subjective?

You've moved beyond that into whether or not God is good (God being good being an assumption). 

You very first comment was not about the topic at hand. Stop lying about who was at fault about the derail.

What would do you think would qualify as evidence?

I'm sorry, but you'll have to prove that God doesn't exist. If God definitely doesn't exist, then it's a non-issue. The real issue in terms of your stance would be more along the lines of just God existing being an assumption.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

If you're open to the possibility of God existing, then that's a different story.

That's what the God of the Bible is noted to be. If God is love, then God would have to be good, right?

I don't care about the Bible which has yet to give evidence to prove its validity. Come back to me with evidence. God is not love or good because he doesn't exist.

Do you consider love to be good?

Yes.

But theists keep on presenting stuff they say is proof!  It's like if the word 'jesus' appears in a document from 200 years after he supposedly died the whole of the bible must be true!  

Followed up by:

but it won't sway anyone with the most basic grasp of the actual science.

Most Christians don't like their assumptions challenged.

True. That is the problem I have. I would like them to provide evidence for their assumption not give me what Mopac is doing which is circular logic. 

I suppose a lot of dumb believers cheer themselves up by imagining they know something clever people don't get.

"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him."

So basically you can't actually provide evidence for your God so now your went on some old English rants. Okay.

I'm not interested in arguing fruitlessly. That seems to be what you like doing. I'm not interested.

You don't understand the evidence, and since you are a fool you dismiss it instead of trying to understand it.

You don't know what evidence is. I have clearly shown on this site what is evidence by providing links that are credible yet you can't do the same. The very thing that keeps you going, gives you the motivation to carry on living your life and yet you can't justify it with evidence? Weird how faulty your ground is when the Religion you sponsor can't compete with the currently accepted societal norms.

Also, you are insisting that I debate under your defining of terms, which I don't agree with. Your definition of god has nothing to do with my God.

This guy?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43512175

So you are commiting the logical fallacies of invincible ignorance and strawman.

In order for me to commit invincible ignorance you would require to give evidence yet you don't have any and have been using your very own definitions instead of what I accepted. Not a straw-man because you are using different definitions from me and circular logic is not evidence even if I accept your definitions.